I searched and didn't see one of these threads like our Orthodox brothers have. I think it could be useful.

Copied from Thunk's post in the Orthodox thread with a few changes:

"This thread is meant to be by and for the Catholics and those particularly interested in what we are talking about. A place to share Catholic news, humor and quotes from our saints and teachers. The Catholic Church is a large worldwide body and it is good to know what the other Catholics in other jurisdictions are up to. Most importantly for us here anyway, I hope this will be a blessing to those of us who are Catholic."

I'd also like to add that it can be used to ask questions (what does the Catholic church teach about.....), but if it may turn into a debate, please take it to another thread.

My question specifically, what is a good introductory resource for the understanding of Original Sin? I read the section in the Catechism, but was wondering if there was something else you would recommend.

Good idea. I had the same thought, so thanks for starting the thread. I'm pretty busy at the moment, but maybe Del or Wos can help out with some theological sources on Original Sin.

Also, I miss BigWill.

+1

In our parish, we're counting down the days until the start of Advent and the advent of the new English translation of the missal. We've had some good preaching on it, and a potluck dinner with additional tips and encouragement for those who want to brush up on the changes and practice a bit before the Big Day.

It's a welcome change, from my POV.

"There's what's right and there's what's right and never the twain shall meet."

tobacco_tenderfoot wrote:My question specifically, what is a good introductory resource for the understanding of Original Sin? I read the section in the Catechism, but was wondering if there was something else you would recommend.

A slow and careful reading of Genesis 2 & 3 is the place to start. And we can consider the place of Mary, because her exceptional graces reveal much about our usual state of original sin.

Speaking to the serpent, the LORD said:

Gen 3:15 wrote:15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your seed and hers;
he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

The Woman is an important figure. Eve is not The Woman, because she was not at enmity with Satan... Eve and the Serpent are being scolded for their cooperation.

All sin is cooperation with Satan. Only one who is without sin could be "as enmity" with Satan. And from such came the seed that struck at Satan's head.... and in the process, Satan "bruised his heel." This rich little verse is called the "Proto-Gospel," because it fortells the sinlessness of Mary, the coming of the Savior, and His Passion.

Gen 3:16 wrote:16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

This is why the virgin-birth is so very central in God's plan: Jesus was born without "opening the womb" of Mary, and without any sort of labor pains, to show that Mary is indeed The Woman of verse 15, the one who is at enmity with Satan, the one whose Seed will strike at Satan's head.

This verse also reveals why we say that Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, for it was the Holy Spirit who overshadowed her and conceived the Savior with her, and it was the Holy Spirit whom Mary desired and obeyed, all the days of her life.

Gen 3:20 wrote:20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

I've seen many commentors claim that this verse must be "misplaced." Adam named everything else in Chapter 2, but Eve gets named after the curses for their sin. But some wiser writer (Pope Benedict, I think) has recently insisted that this verse is exactly where it is supposed to be. Adam and Eve became the parents of all of the living after they had fallen, and their fallen state is our inheritance.

"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

Let's begin with Original Grace, or "Original Gifts" - which means the same thing.

Adam and Eve had a Supernatural Gift -- They walked in the presence of God.

It is called "supernatural" because being with God belongs to the nature of God... No angel or human or any created thing can see God, unless God chooses to reveal Himself to the creature. Thus, demons cannot see God or know Him.

Adam & Eve also had four preternatural gifts:
- Infused knowledge (they knew things without having to learn them, like the proper names and uses of other creatures)
- Infused virtues (they had a "natural" habit of living in a way that was pleasing to God)
- Impassibility (This means that they did not suffer from heat or cold or mosquito bites, thus they could be naked and comfortable)
- Immortality (no death)

These are called "preternatural" because they are the gifts that are proper to spiritual beings -- angels and fully human persons. [Fallen angels lost the infused virtues, and they know suffering.]

With the Original Sin, humanity lost all of the these gifts. They lost the communion with God, and they lost the preternatural gifts.

You should memorize this list of losing the preternatural gifts:The results of Original Sin were
- Darkening of the Intellect
- Weakening of the will
- Suffering, and
- Death.

Weakening of the will is a the big one.... this is concupiscence, the condition in which we are tempted to fall into sin, even when we know better.

Darkening of the intellect means that we must learn the hard way, often from our mistakes.

When Jesus saved us.... He restored the supernatural gift. We are able now to know God, just as Adam and Eve did. We have to pass the test of this life and a judgment, without the help of the preternatural gifts, and then we will see God.

At the Resurrection of the Dead, our glorified bodies will enjoy restoration of the preternatural gifts.... immortality, freedom from all pain, knowledge of all natural things and a natural ease of living without sin.
============================
Consider Mary now:

She was protected from Original Sin! It pleased God that her special gifts were hidden from the world, but as the New Eve -- Mary possessed all of the supernatural and preternatural gifts.

Supernatural gift: Mary enjoyed a unique communion with God, conceiving by the Holy Spirit, carrying God within her womb and nursing Him at her breast. Now she sits at the hand of His throne.

Preternatural gift:
- Although mostly hidden from us, Scripture reveals a bit about Mary's infused knowledge. She encountered the Angel Gabriel without fear. She knew the time of Jesus public revelation was ready (Wedding at Cana) before Jesus Himself ready to admit it.
- Mary's sinlessness is evidence of her infused virtues.
- The painless birth of Jesus was a sign of her impassibility to natural suffering. (However, she suffered great emotional & spiritual pain with Jesus during His passion.)
- Mary's Assumption fulfilled her immortality, sparing her the curse of death and corruption.

So, in Mary, we see the promise of the gifts that we will all enjoy when our bodies are glorified after the Resurrection of the Dead. It will be the complete destruction of Original Sin.

"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

Highway 101 and Jesuits
well one Jesuit anyway. He told this story a long time ago to illustrate that one acts according to what one believes

North of San Rafael, California, Highway 101 curves as it descends into town. One morning a drunk woman tried to walk across 101 causing a chain reaction collision with more and more automobiles flying down the hill and joining the carnage below. the was a seminary along side the freeway and the seminaians came running after hearing the multiple wrecks. Some of the seminarians ran up the hill to signal the on coming cars to slow down.

After the wreck, many of the drivers were interviewed and one of the questions asked was, "Did you see the young men on the side of the road signalling you to slow down?"
Many drivers said "yes"
The next question "Did you believe them?"
Most the responses were "yes"
The next question "Did you slow down?"
Most responded "No."

Mostly I tend to avoid listening too closely to what living Jesuits have said, but this struck me as worthy of deeper contemplation. We will act in accordance to what we truly believe.
Do you think?

Bigwill wrote:In the new translation of the Mass, the Nicene Creed will be spoken as a community of individuals ('I believe') rather than as a mere community ('We believe').

This is a MOMENTOUS change, especially for Joe Pewsitter who hasn't spent much time studying the faith (or the Creed).

Forgive the interloping but why do you see this as significant?

I've seen arguments for both the "I" and the "We" for the creed used liturgically. and they strike me as opposite side of the same coin. Though I do understand the the need the for "I believe.." type liturgical responses.

"Go and reconcile with him who has trespassed against you before he comes and apologises to you and steals your crown" - H.H. Pope Cyril VI<br><br>"O Lord I was not aware of the treasure within me that is You" - H.H. Pope Shenouda III

Bigwill wrote:In the new translation of the Mass, the Nicene Creed will be spoken as a community of individuals ('I believe') rather than as a mere community ('We believe').

This is a MOMENTOUS change, especially for Joe Pewsitter who hasn't spent much time studying the faith (or the Creed).

Forgive the interloping but why do you see this as significant?

I've seen arguments for both the "I" and the "We" for the creed used liturgically. and they strike me as opposite side of the same coin. Though I do understand the the need the for "I believe.." type liturgical responses.

This is significant because the modern, squishy, cafeteria-Catholic can too comfortably sit himself behind the concept of "we." "The Catholic Church teaches x, and I am comfortable with my opinion on x + some liberties - some challenging parts. But I'm still a good Catholic, because we believe x."

The change in the Creed to an accurate translation of Credo will hopefully lead to a few sermons on taking personal ownership of what my Church believes. Hopefully.

The original translation, back in the early 70's, was marked by the spirit of the era -- when emphasis was on "community" and "inclusion" and the "all-together-ness" of churchy things. That mood is passed.

"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

Bigwill wrote:In the new translation of the Mass, the Nicene Creed will be spoken as a community of individuals ('I believe') rather than as a mere community ('We believe').

This is a MOMENTOUS change, especially for Joe Pewsitter who hasn't spent much time studying the faith (or the Creed).

Forgive the interloping but why do you see this as significant?

I've seen arguments for both the "I" and the "We" for the creed used liturgically. and they strike me as opposite side of the same coin. Though I do understand the the need the for "I believe.." type liturgical responses.

This is significant because the modern, squishy, cafeteria-Catholic can too comfortably sit himself behind the concept of "we." "The Catholic Church teaches x, and I am comfortable with my opinion on x + some liberties - some challenging parts. But I'm still a good Catholic, because we believe x."

The change in the Creed to an accurate translation of Credo will hopefully lead to a few sermons on taking personal ownership of what my Church believes. Hopefully.

The original translation, back in the early 70's, was marked by the spirit of the era -- when emphasis was on "community" and "inclusion" and the "all-together-ness" of churchy things. That mood is passed.

Okay, I was curious because with in the Coptic rite at the start the Liturgy of the Faithful the creed is prayed starting with "We believe..." indicating those who are now attending are of the believers, i.e. the baptised a carry over from the early church liturgy where the catechumen were made to leave after the Liturgy of the Word and also had no right to pray either "The Lord's Prayer" or "Creed" until baptised. Thanks.

"Go and reconcile with him who has trespassed against you before he comes and apologises to you and steals your crown" - H.H. Pope Cyril VI<br><br>"O Lord I was not aware of the treasure within me that is You" - H.H. Pope Shenouda III

Bigwill wrote:In the new translation of the Mass, the Nicene Creed will be spoken as a community of individuals ('I believe') rather than as a mere community ('We believe').

This is a MOMENTOUS change, especially for Joe Pewsitter who hasn't spent much time studying the faith (or the Creed).

Forgive the interloping but why do you see this as significant?

I've seen arguments for both the "I" and the "We" for the creed used liturgically. and they strike me as opposite side of the same coin. Though I do understand the the need the for "I believe.." type liturgical responses.

This is significant because the modern, squishy, cafeteria-Catholic can too comfortably sit himself behind the concept of "we." "The Catholic Church teaches x, and I am comfortable with my opinion on x + some liberties - some challenging parts. But I'm still a good Catholic, because we believe x."

The change in the Creed to an accurate translation of Credo will hopefully lead to a few sermons on taking personal ownership of what my Church believes. Hopefully.

The original translation, back in the early 70's, was marked by the spirit of the era -- when emphasis was on "community" and "inclusion" and the "all-together-ness" of churchy things. That mood is passed.

Okay, I was curious because with in the Coptic rite at the start the Liturgy of the Faithful the creed is prayed starting with "We believe..." indicating those who are now attending are of the believers, i.e. the baptised a carry over from the early church liturgy where the catechumen were made to leave after the Liturgy of the Word and also had no right to pray either "The Lord's Prayer" or "Creed" until baptised. Thanks.

It has to do with the purpose behind the changes. In isolation, some, maybe even most, of the Novus Ordo changes could have an argument made on their behalf. But when you add them all up and mix liberally with the spirit of Vat II, it was devastating.